Cited by 480Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis TechniquesMental Health Research Topics

Disrupted Modularity and Local Connectivity of Brain Functional Networks in Childhood-Onset Schizophrenia

Open access
Alexander-Bloch, Aaron F., Gogtay, Nitin, Meunier, David, Birn, Rasmus, Clasen, Liv, Lalonde, Francois, Lenroot, Rhoshel, Giedd, Jay +1 more·2010·Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience

Abstract

Modularity is a fundamental concept in systems neuroscience, referring to the formation of local cliques or modules of densely intra-connected nodes that are sparsely inter-connected with nodes in other modules. Topological modularity of brain functional networks can quantify theoretically anticipated abnormality of brain network community structure - so-called dysmodularity - in developmental disorders such as childhood-onset schizophrenia (COS). We used graph theory to investigate topology of networks derived from resting-state fMRI data on 13 COS patients and 19 healthy volunteers. We measured functional connectivity between each pair of 100 regional nodes, focusing on wavelet correlation in the frequency interval 0.05-0.1 Hz, then applied global and local thresholding rules to construct graphs from each individual association matrix over the full range of possible connection densities. We show how local thresholding based on the minimum spanning tree facilitates group comparisons of networks by forcing the connectedness of sparse graphs. Threshold-dependent graph theoretical results are compatible with the results of a k-means unsupervised learning algorithm and a multi-resolution (spin glass) approach to modularity, both of which also find community structure but do not require thresholding of the association matrix. In general modularity of brain functional networks was significantly reduced in COS, due to a relatively reduced density of intra-modular connections between neighboring regions. Other network measures of local organization such as clustering were also decreased, while complementary measures of global efficiency and robustness were increased, in the COS group. The group differences in complex network properties were mirrored by differences in simpler statistical properties of the data, such as the variability of the global time series and the internal homogeneity of the time series within anatomical regions of interest.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnsys.2010.00147

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The modular structure of the brain is not static but undergoes changes in response to external and internal drivers, ranging from cognitive processes to disease.

    “However, this modular structure is not static but undergoes changes in response to external and internal drivers, ranging from cognitive processes (3, 31) to disease (32).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 86 · Cited by 480

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fodor J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Authors
Alexander-Bloch, A. F., Gogtay, N., Meunier, D., Birn, R., Clasen, L., Lalonde, F., Lenroot, R., Giedd, J., & Bullmore, E. T.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Bullmore, Edward T.
Venue
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Published
2010
Volume
4
Pages
147-147
ISSN
1662-5137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084009541
Cited by
480
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 32
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
childhood schizophrenia, functional brain networks, network modularity, community structure, local connectivity, resting-state functional connectivity, clustering coefficient, global efficiency, network robustness, developmental disorders, wavelet correlation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review